Decisions, Decisions
by Blake Jensen on Mar 3, 2010 11:20 AM PST
Email
PrintNews just broke that the long time Left Tackle for the Washington Redskins just retired. This is the link, here. With the retirement of Chris Samuels and Jason Campbell being tendered, I think Seattle has a great chance of having Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen available at 6. The only two realistic hurdles would be the Rams selecting a QB first overall, or someone trading up ahead of us. But, if they were to both fall to us a 6, who should we select between the two? Do we select a QB at all? (God, I hope this doesn't count as Rosterbation.)
Possibility of drafting a QB, Picks 1-5:
Rams: Very Possible. Probably the biggest threat to draft a QB before us. It's just a matter of who they value more for the money, Suh, McCoy, Bradford, or Clausen.
Lions: Extremely Unlikely. For obvious reasons.
Bucs: Extremely Unlikely.
Redskins: Unlikely. They could still, hypothetically go for a QB, but it just wouldn't make sense, especially with all the activity buzzing around them. I think they will go after Okung, if he is around.
Chiefs: Highly Unlikely. They have way too much money tied up in Cassel, as well as needs in other places.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We have to go QB
Long time lurker here. If both QB’s are sitting on the board at 6, we should have our pick in before espn finishes hyping the Chief’s pick. My preference would be Bradford, purely for his accuracy which I believe translates the best in the NFL.
If Bradford is gone, I’d go for highest rated LT on the board and hope for Clausen at 14. If we miss on both, then I think we take a second tier project QB in round 2 or 4 and punt to next year.
I agree
Matt could give us another year with decent protection if we need a 2nd tier QB.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
I think the Rams go Bradford
I don’t know. I really hope everyone skips the QB’s and the Seahawks get the first pick of the litter, but I think they may both be gone (Rams, Redskins)
My greatest fear is Eric Berry
I know he’ll probably be a good player, but that’s just not what this team needs. Or any team with a top ten pick.
I agree - I don't always agree with the best player available theory
He will definitely be the best player available but I think Babs and Grant our good enough for now.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
Needs, needs, needs.
He could be what the team needs at safety for the long term, even if they do not need him next year.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 3, 2010 8:51 PM PST up reply actions
yeah the big picture is important
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 3, 2010 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
Or he could be a bust...
ala Michael Huff. And then we would be left with a bust at a position that wasn’t even a need in the first place, when need position players were available. That’s the danger in the Berry pick in my eyes.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 7, 2010 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
but he's fast and strong
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 9:33 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that the Rams might go Bradford
but I just don’t see both QB’s being gone by the time we pick. I think it got a whole lot more likely that we get the pick of litter with Samuels retiring. They had a porous line last year that just got a whole lot worse. Plus, Jason Campbell played pretty well last year through adversity. I think Shannahan has his head on straight enough to pick a Left Tackle.
Lord, forgive me for my transgressions, as well as rosterbation.
I think you are right
With any logic at all, the rams have to go for a QB. Suh might be the best available, but thats a lot of money for a DT when you don’t have a QB. As far as Washington, Snider is such a wild card, throw in Shannahan and you have a no idea what they will do.
I think so
Shannahan knows that Campbell has had a lot of change and not a lot of protection, not to mention injuries to RB’s. That leaves us Clausen, so do we take him at 6 and hope the 49ers don’t take him? There are the only real wild card before we pick at 14. They may decide Alex Smith is damaged goods now and take him.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
I'm confused
Do you mean pass him at 6 and hope he slips to 14?
Lord, forgive me for my transgressions, as well as rosterbation.
I would because I am not 100% on him.
I’d rather take the best tackle and then hope he slips to 14. I’d rather have two tackles or Spiller.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
I would say that the best tackle for us would be Brown
And he should be available at 14, not necessarily worth the #6.
I'd be happy if we took Spiller at 6
and then Brown with the 14th. I like Brown and I think Carroll and Bates would know exactly what to do with him.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
We can use 40 for a DT or another tackle if we had to
People really like Alualu around here. I think Clausen may take a pretty deep dive.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
If Okung goes to Washington
I wonder if any remaining tackle will grade well enough to be taken at 6. Bulaga, Brown or Campbell. Might be better to take who’s left, at 14, while possibly only one QB is left and could be taken at up to 6 spots.
Taking two OT's
with our top 40 picks would be a disservice to the team. I am all about the offensive line as the core of the team, but there are so many other needs that must be addressed along with OT. QB, DT, WR, RB, and DB are all equal or greater needs. I think picking a tackle at 6 would be a reach, especially considering we will be left with at best the #2 OT, assuming only Washington takes one.
That said:
#6: Clausen/Bradford/Berry
#14: Spiller/Brown/Morgan
#40: Houston/McKnight/Alu’Alu
by Fightfightfight on Mar 3, 2010 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
Not sure if I am reading this right...
But if so, you pass on Clausen at 6, take the best OL at 6 and hopefully Bulaga is still there. Take Clausen at 14 if he is still there.
I don't see how we pass up either Bradford or Clausen at 6.
In fact, I will be stunned if we don’t take a QB with our first pick. It is by far the greatest need on this team right now. Hasselbeck is done.
I will put money on Hasselbeck staying for one last year, getting injured at some point in time, and our rookie QB taking over the starting position.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
With Bradford bulking up he is going first
The only way the Rams don’t take him is if he can’t throw due to bulk and I really hope the Redskins don’t take Clausen.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
This is how I see it:
Rams: Suh, McCoy, or Bradford
Lions: 0% Chance
Bucs: 0% Chance
Redskins: Unlikely. Likely. 60-40 QB. After all the trade-up talk last year the owner (who calls the shots) wants his shiny new QB and gets it barring a trade.
Chiefs: 0% Chance
If the Rams take Bradford, we’ll have to trade up and over the Redskins if we want one of the two top QBs this year. I hope we’re working on it. I would consider a trade up regardless and have a shot at Bradford.
If the Rams take Bradford I want to move up to the 2nd pick and get Suh
I think we should make this move anyway if Detroit will play ball. That way we assure ourselves of either Bradford or Suh and that is one hell of a nice choice to have.
2009 Passing stats
The Seahawks were 15th out of the 32 teams in passing yards and 30th out of the 32 teams in passing yards allowed. The DB’s we have are obviously imposed upon due to the lack of an effective pass rush, but I also note that our CB’s average about 5’-10" and most of the really good WR’s currently playing and many that will be drafted probably average 6’-2" or so. Our guys often look like smerfs attacking the jolly green giant.
Add to that problem Trufant had a bad year + I read that he was the most penalized CB in the NFC, which says a lot considering he missed 6 of the 16 games. I’d say he might be trade bait, but I’m not sure he would have as much value after last year. We need a balhawking Safety and at least one taller CB that has the ability to start as a rookie. We also, obviously need a good DE and probably DT.
But wait, we also need offensive playmakers and OL, there just doesn’t seem to be enough draft picks. How can we get more? Obviously – trade down at least one of our two first rounders and aquire some more picks. There is a big gap between #40 and #101 and a lot of really good players we could use in the 2nd 3rd rounds. I know some will say “quality over quantity”, however with good scouting and evaluation I think we can with this draft (and FA’s and next years draft) significantly upgrade a number of positions where the current players are not performing up to expectations and thus enhance the entire teams performance.
Additionally, I don’t understand the Hasselbak haters, anyone ever had a bad back problem or broken ribs? The lack of adequate pass protection would make even Manning look bad statistically. I think it would be a huge mistake to take a QB in the first round and pay him big bucks and have him not turn out (The Seahawks have already done that enough in years past). We can only put our faith into PC and trust that he can evaluate the choices to our best interest. I’d be of the opinion that it would be better to skip QB this year than to select one that wouldn’t pan out (AGAIN).
Jim Q.
by CamanoIslandJQ on Mar 11, 2010 11:34 PM PST reply actions
QB
There are multiple reasons people are looking for Matt’s replacement: he’s at an age where QBs have been statistically shown to be less productive, he’s only got one more year on contract, his contract is expensive, his play at the end of the season (when his ribs had supposedly healed) was mediocre to awful, he’s injury-prone.
Of course it’d be a mistake use the first draft pick on a QB who doesn’t pan out — just as it would be a mistake to pick a player at any other position who doesn’t pan out — but picking someone who succeeds and becomes the next franchise QB would be a great move. I don’t want fear of a possible bust to keep this team from making a move that’s necessary to put us back in consistent contention.
QB
I guess I didn’t word the last paragraph very well. I was trying to say that even though I don’t really believe that Clausen would be a good pick – so why not trade down for more help?
I think Matt still has some gas in his tank if we could get him some decent help his performance would be enhanced and there would probably be much less of an injury factor. The ultimate decision on picking QB of course belongs to PC and I wanted to convey that we fans need to trust his judgement on drafting a QB. I like Bradford but I’m pretty sure he will not be there at #6. Clausen may be okay too and if the Hawks end up drafting him it will be because in PC’s evaluation he’ll work out and improve the QB position. I very much agree that we should have a “QB of the future” for when Matt is done, I just don’t care much for Clausen but maybe PC does.
Jim Q.
by CamanoIslandJQ on Mar 12, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
I haven’t watched Clausen enough to have much of an opinion on him either way (or Bradford for that matter), but if we don’t draft a QB this year then I don’t know when we would; hopefully we won’t be drafting this high again for a long time.
I am unsure about Clausen also...
but he has the skill set and seems to have the brains, and training with Charlie Weiss for a 3 years is a plus also.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 12, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
The bigger issue here isn't that Matt is incapable of playing,
it is that Matt’s play is extremely likely to just get worse and we would be in an even bigger hole at the position if we wait til next year to gamble on a big talent at QB. Plus, no FO is going to actually PLAN on having a high enough draft pick for the best 2011 QB.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
The bigger issue here isn't that Matt is incapable of playing,
it is that Matt’s play is extremely likely to just get worse and we would be in an even bigger hole at the position if we wait til next year to gamble on a big talent at QB. Plus, no FO is going to actually PLAN on having a high enough draft pick for the best 2011 QB.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I agree that some of his issues last year was the o-line.
I don’t think we are haters and most of us wouldn’t mind him starting next year if he could get adequate protection. I went to the Tampa Bay game last year and his jersey was the one I say the most of. I would like to see him be the guy to bring the team out of inadequacy this year. That being said he is old enough where injuries pile up and they don’t stop. I don’t see the team resigning Matt because it is time to move on.
I know it is only a guess but I think Pete Carroll knows that rebuilding this team is not going to be a one year project, our team is old, and there is not a large talent pool outside of our LB’s, and a few key players.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 12, 2010 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
The average height of the top 15 cornerbacks in this draft is 5'11
Top 15 according to scouts inc.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 12, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Okay 1" but......
Is that press guide height or combine measurement? Not that height is stated on the high side all of the time, but I’ve seen guys that were supposed to be 5’-11" that were streaching to hit 5’-9"
Jim Q.
by CamanoIslandJQ on Mar 13, 2010 12:01 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
